Religious Rights and Medical Care of Children

[John]

A Wisconsin couple convicted of "second-degree reckless homicide" in 2009 because they chose to pray for their 11 year-old daughter who was suffering from undiagnosed diabetes rather than seeking medical care have been given the right to appeal to the Supreme Court because they claim their constitutional rights were violated. I assume this turns on whether you can legitimately do the dumbest things in the name of faith even putting the life of a dependent at risk.

It seems to be a fairly well established right that you're allowed to brainwash your children with just about any old nonsense as long as you say "it's my religion" but directly putting their life in danger because of it? We could extend the argument to Jehovah's Witnesses and their aversion to blood transfusions of which there's a fairly recent example in the UK where a 15 year old boy refused a transfusion and died.

The two examples aren't quite the same because the parents who chose just to pray for their daughter ruled out another course of action that I assume would have been legitimate. I don't know the full details of the case but I'm not aware of any Christian groups where it's considered sinful to see a doctor. Maybe someone else can enlighten me though as there seem to be a never ending parade of people with beliefs I couldn't imagine any sane person holding.

The Jehova's Witnesses have backed themselves into a cul-de-sac though with their belief that accepting a blood blood transfusions will somehow exclude the receiver from salvation (as far as I understand it anyway).

So, should such views be tolerated? Do parents have a right to "just" pray or refuse a blood transfusion on behalf of a child? It's a complicated issue because as a general principle I assume many people would not wish to give medical professionals carte blanche rights to override parental decisions in the care of their children so does that mean we just need to accept some of the extreme cases or should we be a little less sensitive about offending religious sensibilities?

[ForgedinHell]

People are free, they are born free, they are not the property of their parents. A parent cannot claim freedom for himself, while at the same time, declaring another human being, his child, is just property.

[chaz wyman]

People are free, they are born free, they are not the property of their parents. A parent cannot claim freedom for himself, while at the same time, declaring another human being, his child, is just property.

With this myth behind you, you have certainly chose an odd avatar.

[chaz wyman]

A Wisconsin couple convicted of "second-degree reckless homicide" in 2009 because they chose to pray for their 11 year-old daughter who was suffering from undiagnosed diabetes rather than seeking medical care have been given the right to appeal to the Supreme Court because they claim their constitutional rights were violated. I assume this turns on whether you can legitimately do the dumbest things in the name of faith even putting the life of a dependent at risk.

It seems to be a fairly well established right that you're allowed to brainwash your children with just about any old nonsense as long as you say "it's my religion" but directly putting their life in danger because of it? We could extend the argument to Jehovah's Witnesses and their aversion to blood transfusions of which there's a fairly recent example in the UK where a 15 year old boy refused a transfusion and died.

The two examples aren't quite the same because the parents who chose just to pray for their daughter ruled out another course of action that I assume would have been legitimate. I don't know the full details of the case but I'm not aware of any Christian groups where it's considered sinful to see a doctor. Maybe someone else can enlighten me though as there seem to be a never ending parade of people with beliefs I couldn't imagine any sane person holding.

The Jehova's Witnesses have backed themselves into a cul-de-sac though with their belief that accepting a blood blood transfusions will somehow exclude the receiver from salvation (as far as I understand it anyway).

So, should such views be tolerated? Do parents have a right to "just" pray or refuse a blood transfusion on behalf of a child? It's a complicated issue because as a general principle I assume many people would not wish to give medical professionals carte blanche rights to override parental decisions in the care of their children so does that mean we just need to accept some of the extreme cases or should we be a little less sensitive about offending religious sensibilities?

A boy who is run into by a car in a freak accident whilst preachingto local shoppers. If I were religious i'd think god was trying to say something!!

Winner of the Darwin award for the week.

[ForgedinHell]

People are free, they are born free, they are not the property of their parents. A parent cannot claim freedom for himself, while at the same time, declaring another human being, his child, is just property.

With this myth behind you, you have certainly chose an odd avatar.

How so?

[Kayla]

So, should such views be tolerated?

of course such views should be tolerated

actions based on them are a different matter

Do parents have a right to "just" pray or refuse a blood transfusion on behalf of a child? It's a complicated issue

that makes about as much sense as saying that allowing parents to beat their children is a complicated issue

it is not

if children are property of their parents as many people belief then parents have the right to deny them medical care or food or beat them to death

if they are not property then you have no more right to deny your own child medical care then you have to stop some random guy from getting medical care

see, its very easy

you just have to use a brain cell or two

[John]

Do parents have a right to "just" pray or refuse a blood transfusion on behalf of a child? It's a complicated issue

that makes about as much sense as saying that allowing parents to beat their children is a complicated issue

it is not

if children are property of their parents as many people belief then parents have the right to deny them medical care or food or beat them to death

How so? You can own a dog but it doesn't automatically mean that you have either the moral or the legal right to beat it.

if they are not property then you have no more right to deny your own child medical care then you have to stop some random guy from getting medical care

see, its very easy

What if two doctors differ on the appropriate treatment? Obviously you don't think the parent has any say in overriding the opinion of these professionals so I suppose you'd just let them argue it out would you? It's very easy when someone is lying on an operating table and it's easy to see what needs to be done but it's not so easy around the margins.

you just have to use a brain cell or two

I'm against the parents withholding treatment but at least I can see that there's a philosophical issue at he heart of it that can lead to contradictions.